On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:36 PM Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:01 PM Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > There is an imbalance between when slab_pre_alloc_hook calls
> > memcg_kmem_get_cache and when slab_post_alloc_hook calls
> > memcg_kmem_put_cache.
> >
>
> Can you explain how there is an imbalance? If the returned kmem cache
> from memcg_kmem_get_cache() is the memcg kmem cache then the refcnt of
> memcg is elevated and the memcg_kmem_put_cache() will correctly
> decrement the refcnt of the memcg.
>
> > This can cause a memcg kmem cache to be destroyed right as
> > an object from that cache is being allocated,
Also please note that the memcg kmem caches are destroyed (if empty)
on memcg offline. The css_tryget_online() within
memcg_kmem_get_cache() will fail.
See kernel/cgroup/cgroup.c
* 2. When the percpu_ref is confirmed to be visible as killed on all CPUs
* and thus css_tryget_online() is guaranteed to fail, the css can be
* offlined by invoking offline_css(). After offlining, the base ref is
* put. Implemented in css_killed_work_fn().
> > which is probably
> > not good. It could lead to things like a memcg allocating new
> > kmalloc slabs instead of using freed space in old ones, maybe
> > memory leaks, and maybe oopses as a memcg kmalloc slab is getting
> > destroyed on one CPU while another CPU is trying to do an allocation
> > from that same memcg.
> >
> > The obvious fix would be to use the same condition for calling
> > memcg_kmem_put_cache that we also use to decide whether to call
> > memcg_kmem_get_cache.
> >
> > I am not sure how long this bug has been around, since the last
> > changeset to touch that code - 452647784b2f ("mm: memcontrol: cleanup
> > kmem charge functions") - merely moved the bug from one location to
> > another. I am still tagging that changeset, because the fix should
> > automatically apply that far back.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Fixes: 452647784b2f ("mm: memcontrol: cleanup kmem charge functions")
> > Cc: kernel-team@xxxxxx
> > Cc: linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: David Rientjes <rientjes@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@xxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/slab.h | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/slab.h b/mm/slab.h
> > index 4190c24ef0e9..ab3d95bef8a0 100644
> > --- a/mm/slab.h
> > +++ b/mm/slab.h
> > @@ -444,7 +444,8 @@ static inline void slab_post_alloc_hook(struct kmem_cache *s, gfp_t flags,
> > p[i] = kasan_slab_alloc(s, object, flags);
> > }
> >
> > - if (memcg_kmem_enabled())
> > + if (memcg_kmem_enabled() &&
> > + ((flags & __GFP_ACCOUNT) || (s->flags & SLAB_ACCOUNT)))
>
> I don't think these extra checks are needed. They are safe but not needed.
>
> > memcg_kmem_put_cache(s);
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
>
> thanks,
> Shakeel
